zed?

I’ve been out – just caught the last couple questions to Goodling. Apparently, the planning of the questioning of her leaves something to be desired?

Stellar law school Regent has. Monica Goodling is supposedly a licensed lawyer and yet she admitted breaking the law but “didn’t mean to.” Apparently we’re supposed to believe she’s too stupid to know the law and that she worked in a place (the DOJ) that was devoid of any legal opinion she could turn to. Uh-huh.

ET — I actually think that it isn’t quite as bad as some are making out. Depends what the dems do with the inconsistencies.

David Iglesias Q&A at WaPo.

Weat Texas: I have only heard a few minutes of Ms. Goodling’s testimony. She seemed to say that she did not know where the list(s) for firing came from, but she knows it did not come from the White House. Is this an official, rehearsed Department of Justice response? It sounds a lot like the responses from Gonzales. If not from the White House, where else could the names come from?

David Iglesias: West Texas: If names weren’t placed on the list by DoJ, the only possible place to look is the White House.

Looks like Monica is pushing the blame onto McNulty in order to sheild Gonzales. Just as Gonzales wanted last week. Were his glib statements last week about McNultly really meant for her and no one else?

Christy,
I think that every time Ms Monica looks away from the questioner, looks down, says um a lot and is talking r-e-a-l slowlly, she’s lying. When she’s talking reallly fast, it’s when someone has given her a well rehearesed quesiton.

puppethead @ 2

Stellar law school Regent has. Monica Goodling is supposedly a licensed lawyer and yet she admitted breaking the law but “didn’t mean to.” Apparently we’re supposed to believe she’s too stupid to know the law and that she worked in a place (the DOJ) that was devoid of any legal opinion she could turn to. Uh-huh.

The Regent Law kindergarten?

This stood out to me and I posed it to Froomkin:

Richmond, Va.: Monica again — she said, “I was not a decision maker” but in another breath, she said that when she asked for a name to be removed from the list, it was. I’m no lawyer, but would it be possible for one of these committee members to call her out for such a blatant contradiction?

Dan Froomkin: A good point. She certainly was not without influence. But if the question is who selected these people for firing and why, she insists she doesn’t know.

>”enthusiastic of the priorities.”

Hmm, reminds me of what HAL9000 said in 2001. Something like, [paraphrasing] ‘You know Dave, I still have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission.’

thank you thank you Christy -

the tpm muck link is very good for those of you just now arriving

and Christy, EW, and LHP – thank you so much for setting realistic expectations for this testimony – the bp is definitely elevated but I’d have kicked poor Miguelito by now if y’all hadn’t set us straight on what to expect :)

We all had low expectations about what the HJC members would do–they didn’t do a great job with Comey. But one of the many things that bothers me is when one person hits on something interesting, it would seem natural for another Dem to return to it and dig deeper but it just hasn’t happened.

We’ve already learned that although she claimed to have had no contact with Miers, she did receive email from her. Perhaps we need to go back and clarify the definition of “contact”. Also, there was an exchange or two where I thought she was on the verge of alluding to contact with Rove or a close Rove aide.

I get the feeling that if the HJC pulled its socks up and used the questions compiled by TiredFed or Marcy or if the SJC got in the game, we could get some traction on MG. I think she’d fold if someone like Whitehouse had her in his sights for 10 or 15 minutes.

At the risk of repeating myself:

What little I got to see of it was far from impressive. I thought that after the republican walked her through a question-response designed to get her to say that she could not think of anything illegal about the President replacing DA’s, I thought a good counter-question should have gone like this:

“Ms. Goodling, if the White House deliberately targeted and fired DA’s who were aggressively pursuing legitimate criminal investigations against the President’s political allies, in order to replace them with other DAs who agreed to quietly drop the case, would that be illegal?”

“Ms. Goodling, if the White House deliberately replaced DA’s who would not pursue sham voter fraud investigations designed to disenfranchise large blocks of citizens who are prone to voting for the political opposition, would THAT be illegal?”

“Ms Goodling, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SUCH EFFORTS OR DISCUSSIONS OF ANY SUCH EFFORTS involving DA’s that this White House has fired or considered firing?”

THAT, I might have been impressed with. The Dems I saw today acted like they have lost interest in the whole thing.

Well, they’d better not, or their stay in Washington will be very short!

Sorry, but I thought these were good enough points to warrant words from someone more knowledgeable about this, but my last post ended up being the last one on the page, and I’m not sure anyone saw it.

The other thing I was struck by was her Barbie doll act. Many women tie their hair back when they want to be taken seriously, but she had her dye-job blonde hair puffed up and in front of her shoulders to play up what a demure girl she was. Ugh. She’s a manipulator. I just hope the members of the committee aren’t as easily beguiled as the basement dweller GOP minionists who were probably easily controlled by her.

I think I heard her start to talk about contact with Rove when she was at the RNC but then she got interrupted.

Where is Big Hank when we need him? Conyers should give time to those who are asking good questions.

How can they blame McNulty when as MG claims he didn’t have the authority to hire/fire in teh first place???? So that’s why he wasn’t ask to sign the document. Why wasn’t he told about this document?

These Christian people also seem to be a little lost on the whole issue of ethics………you’d think one reason MG went to christian law school is because of her concern for values and, cough, ethics. It’s not just a law school, it’s a calling (from RU website, puke.)

Would like to hear more about the negotiations that resulted in the late turnover of documents. Were documents turned over, but in redacted form? What was the reason for the initial refusal to turn ove in the first place?

Also, Christy, what is your opinion on the quality of the questioning?

Well, this is ever so much bullshit so far. I’d suggest making a few polite but pointed calls to the offices of those Dems who’ve yet to come up.

When she’s talking reallly fast, it’s when someone has given her a well rehearesed quesiton.

She’s a good little oppo-robot. And I expect the Late Nite Photoshoppers to be inspired by Austin Powers in this regard.

ok,

I’ll be first to go o/t

Memo to Iraq troops yesterday about food shortages –

booman

think about it over lunch

What caught my ear was the obvious tag-teaming between the GOPer before Issa and then Issa, on Lam. It put paid to my theory that one side can’t coordinate, because they clearly did.

Does anyone believe that setting up a timeline between memos, meetings, and then newspaper articles makes ANY sense at all? And yet, the pre-Issa GOPcritter did just that; then asked her why anyone would imply she was fired for these things that appeared in the paper much later. Are we to believe that Main DoJ became aware of Lam’s actions only when articles about Cunningham appeared in the paper?

They knew what Lam was up to on Cunningham very early on, and started baking the guns-and-immigration pie for her then. They even suckered DiFi into playing along. But they were clearly going for Lam, because of Cunningham (and Foggo and Wilkes) long before anything appeared in the paper.

David @ 14:

Excellent questions!

This just in: the President has signed a hastily-crafted Republican bill prohibiting anyone named “Monica” from ever working inside the Beltway again. “We’re Oh-fer-Two on Monica’s in the White House,” the President commented, “they’re jes’ trouble, an’ Ah mean t’see ‘em kept at a safe distance.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s only comment was “How did a bill reach the President’s desk without my hearing about it?” Although everyone present turned to look at Karl Rove at this point, no reply was forthcoming.

kinda ugly fer a barbie doll- in my opinion.

Why hasn’t anyone asked her about her email language. Like “loyal Bushies” and “friendlies?” What is the precise definition of a loyal Bushie and a friendly.

Also–re the “not meaning to walk over the line legally: Why hasn’t anyone asked her if 1) if any of her superiors instruct her to determine the party/political affiliation of career hires, and 2) which of her superiors knew she was investigating this aspect of the prospective candidate’s background.

Like, someone needs to pass out of file to sharpen some teeth up there…

Does the HJC reconvene at 2 or 2:15?

I’m not following closely, but MG’s “didn’t mean to” excuse seems to me to be the least damaging “defense” these people could come up with. Everyone knows the process was politicized, but if it was just her, making snap decisions, then Rove and the White House is innocent of devising a corrupt policy — which is where my nose would tell me to look.

MG stated at least a few times that she made notes regarding specific conversations and meetings. Has she produced these notes?

EPU’d from last thread:

Biodun @ 81

Monica: I’m always looking for people who will make a difference in the world. We have a lot of people from Harvard and Yale.

Cohen: That’s refreshing.

IANAL. Do Harvard and Yale deserve to be legit high standards for law schools?

She had to say something about potential legal exposure to explain taking the fifth.

LBrowne @ 13

We’ve already learned that although she claimed to have had no contact with Miers, she did receive email from her. Perhaps we need to go back and clarify the definition of “contact”. Also, there was an exchange or two where I thought she was on the verge of alluding to contact with Rove or a close Rove aide.

It’s pretty clear that Rove’s conduit for DOJ dirty work (and GSA dirty work, and other departmental dirty work) is Scott Jennings. Rove doesn’t personally talk to the hired help.

The list just dropped out of Karl’s rectum. Seriously, I think she got her law degree out of a Happy Meal box.

dick c @ 28

I’m not following closely, but MG’s “didn’t mean to” excuse seems to me to be the least damaging “defense” these people could come up with. Everyone knows the process was politicized, but if it was just her, making snap decisions, then Rove and the White House is innocent of devising a corrupt policy — which is where my nose would tell me to look.

I wanted Nadler to ask her why she did it, if she didn’t mean to. Corner her–ask her why she felt justified in breaking the civil service laws? And if she didn’t, then just what did she mean to do? They need to ask her what was in her mind at the time? (like making Sampson et al happy with her performance)

puppethead @ 14

The other thing I was struck by was her Barbie doll act. Many women tie their hair back when they want to be taken seriously, but she had her dye-job blonde hair puffed up and in front of her shoulders to play up what a demure girl she was. Ugh. She’s a manipulator. I just hope the members of the committee aren’t as easily beguiled as the basement dweller GOP minionists who were probably easily controlled by her.

I disagree. I think hair color might be the only truthful part of what we see of her today.

Biodon @ 30. Yes. They get the best students.

We have the Demo cave in yesterday and this today. Doesn’t inspire confidence.

puppethead @ 15

The other thing I was struck by was her Barbie doll act. Many women tie their hair back when they want to be taken seriously, but she had her dye-job blonde hair puffed up and in front of her shoulders to play up what a demure girl she was. Ugh. She’s a manipulator. I just hope the members of the committee aren’t as easily beguiled as the basement dweller GOP minionists who were probably easily controlled by her.

To add to your point, I was struck by how quickly she corrected/snapped at a dem on “it wasn’t an executive order, it was a whatever order…” a little too snippy to be demure.

who cares? it was an order to give little miss the power to hire/fire.

Let go and let God, Monica!

Longtime lurker comments:

Thank you FDL. I could NOT bear watching. The thought of how Lam, Iglesias, McKay, et al, not to mention Fitz and Comey and FDL’s very own Reddhead and LHP, could mop the floor with this woman just infuriated me.

Also adding this as a reminder to Mr. Comey and Mr. Iglesias adn others who are now expressing personal surprise at their sudden popularity among the commie left: I do not idolize any human being. I love, crave and demand the truth. Permit me to repeat with my outside voice: I LOVE, CRAVE AND DEMAND THE TRUTH.

I respect those who share my desires and beliefs that THE TRUTH “is the engine or our system of justice” and has the power to “set us free”. But I do not idolize them. We merely share a belief in something greather than ourselves, something that serves us all for the greater good.

End of rant.
Thanks, I just had to get that off my chest.

Has she been asked about the RNC emails?

That was part of the rationale for pleading the fifth.

HJC reconvenes @ 2 ET.

EPU’ed

radiofreewill @ 175

This is not how you question a hostile witness – they should be prying the facts out of her along pre-determined lines of legal surmise.

Our gang is fishing today instead of hunting.

This would be OK if it were a set up for more pointed questions. There are a lot of inconsistencies in Goodling’s testimony so far. In the afternoon session, these should be hit hard. They probably won’t be but the material is definitely there.

These cover areas that I have previously mentioned a couple of times.

1. Documentation
2. Power
3. The White House

She is supposed to be a professional. She is supposed to know how to document. The documentation here is non-existent. So is she incompetent or deceitful?

She can do the Miss GoodyTwoShoes act all day but she had real hiring and firing authority both before and definitely after the Gonzales delegation order. So how did it happen that virtually all the fires were of qualified attorneys with good performance records? This is a mess. She had the power. She is responsible for it.

She was the liaison to the White House during the (as she has herself admitted) political hiring and firing of US attorneys. We know of Karl Rove’s obsession with voter fraud cases, his policy of punishing those who do not follow his political line. Yet we are to believe that there was little or no input or communication between the White House liaison at Justice who just happens to have been delegated (along with Kyle Sampson) with hiring and firing authority?

What caught my ear was two words:

Caging and Griffin

Biodun @ 30

IANAL. Do Harvard and Yale deserve to be legit high standards for law schools?

Well, it’s a start. The point is that they should be represented, and they disproportionately were not. Great people can come from lesser regarded schools, but so many from Regent?

I think that’s the problem.

Guess what dems were hoping for was a smoking gun showing that the White House was behind the firings and that they were done for political reasons.

Monica seems to be claiming that although she was White House Liaison- she had no contact with the big boys there and that although she heard some discussions about why people were valued or not- she wasn’t a party to the final decision on who to can or why..

She’s basically claiming insulation from knowledge and it’s like pullin teeth to get her to admit any differently.

The REAL decisions about who ta can and why were all done behind a curtain.

Are there questions that might be asked that would penetrate the curtain?

Neil @ 36:

Thanks. I suspected that. But had to make sure.

Goodling also said that Kyle Sampson, who resigned in March as Gonzales’ chief of staff, compiled the list of prosecutors who were purged last year.

From the AP article linked by CHS.

Note that “purge” is now part of the MSM narrative. This is a very good thing. It connotes Communism and authoritarianism. It’s not nearly as neutral as “fired” and advances the story that we want told here.

Hello Hilde!

welcome to a little island of sanity amidst the crazy headlines…

Shorter Monica:
“I broke the law– but I didn’t mean to!”

My sense here is that Monica, Sampson, & McNulty are forming a circular firing squad. At least one of them, and maybe all three, have perjured themselves.

Bob in HI

LS @ 43

What caught my ear was two words:

Caging and Griffin

They are dancing very hard to make caging mean something else entirely from what it actually means.

I am amazed that rep Sanchez didn’t know what voter caging was and had no idea wha tthe term meant or how it was used. Monica’s answer was “Gosh whilickers I think it has something to do with marketing but I don’t know either!”

sickening. Can someone send Sanchez a brief explaining voter caging to her please??

What is the Shorter joke? I’m not sure I follow.

TeddySanFran @ 50

LS @ 43

What caught my ear was two words:

Caging and Griffin

They are dancing very hard to make caging mean something else entirely from what it actually means.

She made sure to mention it more than once.

Bottom line is if my party were not frightened of Bush and Cheney, that’s who they’d be going after.

noen @ 51

I am amazed that rep Sanchez didn’t know what voter caging was and had no idea wha tthe term meant or how it was used. Monica’s answer was “Gosh whilickers I think it has something to do with marketing but I don’t know either!”

sickening. Can someone send Sanchez a brief explaining voter caging to her please??

Every time one of these GOP tools testifies to their ignorance is more evidence that they are not qualified or fit to serve.

Serving at the pleasure of the president doesn’t mean that is the only qualification. Oh wait, loyal bushie. never mind.

noen @ 51

I am amazed that rep Sanchez didn’t know what voter caging was and had no idea wha tthe term meant or how it was used. Monica’s answer was “Gosh whilickers I think it has something to do with marketing but I don’t know either!”

sickening. Can someone send Sanchez a brief explaining voter caging to her please??

Oh, Sanchez knows exactly what caging means. She just wanted to hear how Monica was going to describe it. That was a loaded question. IMHO

Hilde! Nice!

I’m going to duck in here and then duck out quickly before I get in trouble, but could people please stop attacking Monica’s appearance? It just sounds silly and spiteful. She’s an attractive young woman.

hiding in the shadows —

Navy Stages Latest Show Of Force Off Iran Coast

U.S. Navy Sends Carriers Near Iran

BARBARA SURK | AP | May 23, 2007 11:58 AM EST
Compare other versions

Compare with

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced exercises in the Persian Gulf.

The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own strike group, which includes landing ships carrying members of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The Navy said nine U.S. warships passed through the narrow Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. Merchant ships passing through the busy strait carry two-fifths of the world’s oil exports.

Aircraft aboard the two carriers and the Bonhomme Richard were to conduct air training while the ships ran submarine, mine and other exercises.

more …

As long as we’re dealin with “five minutes each and everybody asks questions” the committee is not serious about roastin the truth out of this craphead.

Getting to the truth even for a good lawyer- takes hours not minutes. When we see one staff attorney questioning for an hour- then we know they’re goin after her.

Can someone tell this uninformed lurker what voter caging is?

I want to know what’s in the emails. I think ‘contact’ through email should have been explored more.

cbl @ 21

ok,

I’ll be first to go o/t

Memo to Iraq troops yesterday about food shortages –

booman

think about it over lunch

Keep it in perspective, though.

Slightly OT but perhaps relavent in providing insight. An interesting aspect of the 3rd Reich that has implications for today’s Republican Party. During the rise of the Nazi’s and their subsequent rule, because the followers were “true believers” having incorporated the ideology of the Party, it often wasn’t necessary for functionaries to recieve orders on the best course of action in a given situation. The functionaries KNEW what was expected of them and therefore would carry out their duties accordingly without having to be told. Those who took initiative, in promoting certain goals and policies inherent in the ideology without being told were rewarded with more power and priviledge. Hitler was the Leader but he did not have to dictate because he KNEW that his followers KNEW what was expected of them. In this regard we are seeing similarities with the Republican Party. Each cog in the wheel knows and has incorporated an ideology that at it’s roots is anti-democratic. They know what is expected of them without having to be told. This goes from a functionary at the DOJ to Republican members in Congress. All for the Party and the ideology.

It quickly became clear that there wasn’t going to be much of a tie-in to Rove and Miers, although she was very much aware of a general WH involvement in the process. She just didn’t know it firsthand.

Given that, I’m not sure why nobody is asking any questions about Gonzo and his contradictory testimony, or just to characterize his “engagement” in the process. What was her impression of him as a leader of the DoJ, what were her interactions with him like, how would she characterize his interactions with Sampson?

Maybe she’s just following Gonzo and trying to make McNulty the fall guy. But she seems to have a very clear and specific memory of the Nov 27 meeting, so it would nice to hear her recollection of Gonzo’s participation in that meeting–since he’s been having a hard time remembering the decision.

And what about the “gap,” the 12 days or whatever it was prior to the Nov 27 meeting, or just after, when Bush was in Mexico, with the emails (from Miers? Sampson?) that they had to wait to get the okay. No one asking her to walk through that sequence, unfortunately.

noen @ 51

I am amazed that rep Sanchez didn’t know what voter caging was and had no idea wha tthe term meant or how it was used. Monica’s answer was “Gosh whilickers I think it has something to do with marketing but I don’t know either!”

sickening. Can someone send Sanchez a brief explaining voter caging to her please??

Especially since we know that Goodling worked with Griffin in Florida on the 2000 election.

Complete bullsh*t,this part of her testimony. Direct marketing, my *ss.

That’s like saying Karl Rove is a former direct marketing executive.

jeliz @ 61

Can someone tell this uninformed lurker what voter caging is?

caging

Are the Dems really backing down on timelines because they’re afaid that Bush is going to go all around over the long memorial day weekend castigating them for not funding the troops? They’re more afraid of Bush calling them names than they are of us???

I want someone to ask her, as a Christian, if she likes working for people who believe in torture, extraordinary rendition, and spying on American citizens; and if that is what she considers people with the same ideology that she adheres to. I’d like to hear her defend the policies implemented by her heros Gonzo and Bush.

Notice that when someone REALLY pushes Sugar Jesus about a point of testimony “So you are saying that you NEVER asked the question about who ya voted for to a candidate who was not interviewed for a political appointee position?”–Sugar Jesus backs off like an Indie Car in reverse gear.

conniptionfit @ 68

Are the Dems really backing down on timelines because they’re afaid that Bush is going to go all around over the long memorial day weekend castigating them for not funding the troops? They’re more afraid of Bush calling them names than they are of us???

yep

Another thing that caught my ears:

She traveled with Gonzo.

Think the Democrats will ever tune to the idea that preventing a possible world war might be important?

what’s the best link to watch the hearings? now on the XP.

conniptionfit @ 68

Are the Dems really backing down on timelines because they’re afaid that Bush is going to go all around over the long memorial day weekend castigating them for not funding the troops? They’re more afraid of Bush calling them names than they are of us???

yes

Sugar Jesus! I LOVE THAT!

LS @ 69

I want someone to ask her, as a Christian, if she likes working for people who believe in torture, extraordinary rendition, and spying on American citizens; and if that is what she considers people with the same ideology that she adheres to. I’d like to hear her defend the policies implemented by her heros Gonzo and Bush.

Awesome line of questioning, LS. High five! ;)

“Ideologically compatible.”

Would like her to define that.

Bush is like an abusive spouse. And the victim keeps going back for more.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 73

Think the Democrats will ever tune to the idea that preventing a possible world war might be important?

I suspect most of the Dems secretly support attacking Iran, because they buy into the nuclear stuff.

Tithonia @ 58

I’m going to duck in here and then duck out quickly before I get in trouble, but could people please stop attacking Monica’s appearance? It just sounds silly and spiteful. She’s an attractive young woman.

I know! It is amazing how, invariably, the appearance of women are attacked. Pretty equally by men on the right and the left I would say. Either that or hormone “jokes”. And I am really sick of it. (I also hate it when men on the right and the left call men they don’t respect “pussies”–something I have seen in the comments on this blog).

“didn’t mean to”

an excuse for not getting away with it.

an excuse for executing an agenda and not taking responsibility for your own actions pursuing that agenda.

only was able to read first thread and jumped to this one to get everyone’s ‘take’ on it.
off to read the rest of the threads…………..thanks fdl.

LS @ 69

I want someone to ask her, as a Christian, if she likes working for people who believe in torture, extraordinary rendition, and spying on American citizens; and if that is what she considers people with the same ideology that she adheres to. I’d like to hear her defend the policies implemented by her heros Gonzo and Bush.

This would be very ineffective and I hope no one ask questions like this. All she would do would be to parrot the GOP talking points we’ve all heard over and over. This line of questioning would get us nowhere.

jim oconnor @ 19

Would like to hear more about the negotiations that resulted in the late turnover of documents. Were documents turned over, but in redacted form? What was the reason for the initial refusal to turn ove in the first place?

Also, Christy, what is your opinion on the quality of the questioning?

Marcy also pointed out that Monica no longer works for the DoJ, so any official DJ e-mls she has from that time are not actually hers.

From the WaPo piece linked to in the post above:

A 1999 graduate of Regent University law school in Virginia Beach with six months of prosecutorial experience, Goodling was among a small coterie of young aides to Gonzales who were remarkable for their inexperience and autonomy in deciding the fates of seasoned Justice Department lawyers, according to current and former officials who worked with the group.

“Remarkable inexperience” is what came through loud and clear to me this morning. That’s the only thing I can come up with to explain the “I didn’t mean to break the law” line.

But it’s the autonomy part that needs to be followed up on now.

TeddySanFran @ 75

conniptionfit @ 68

Are the Dems really backing down on timelines because they’re afaid that Bush is going to go all around over the long memorial day weekend castigating them for not funding the troops? They’re more afraid of Bush calling them names than they are of us???

yes

There were never the votes to override the veto.

TexBetsy @ 74

what’s the best link to watch the hearings? now on the XP.

this is working for me (mac, osx)

I want someone to ask her, as a Christian, if she likes working for people who believe in torture, extraordinary rendition, and spying on American citizens; and if that is what she considers people with the same ideology that she adheres to. I’d like to hear her defend the policies implemented by her heros Gonzo and Bush.

Snap!

I suspect that Monica Goodling is smarter than she’s coming across. Dick C. and Woodhall Hollow are onto something up @34. Why, this sweet young woman may have crossed the line, but she sure didn’t mean to. Just a zealous young professional, trying so hard to do a great job and please her supervisors. If she did, oh so inadvertently, cross that line into illegality, it was unintentional and, certainly, not directed by anybody else.

That’s her assigned role…eager, ambitious young employee, a bit naieve (although a rising star…interesting contradiction), whose zeal may have clouded her judgement, although she can’t recollect for absolute certain. Anybody else see signs of Barbara Comstock at work in this performance?

Tithonia @ 58

I’m going to duck in here and then duck out quickly before I get in trouble, but could people please stop attacking Monica’s appearance? It just sounds silly and spiteful. She’s an attractive young woman.

I would agree with you if she didn’t use her appearance as a manipulation tool.

TeddySanFran @ 87

TexBetsy @ 74

what’s the best link to watch the hearings? now on the XP.

this is working for me (mac, osx)

perfect

The Democrats are weak on defense. What! You didn’t know that?

TexBetsy @ 74

what’s the best link to watch the hearings? now on the XP.

…and is it on CSPAN 1 or 2, or do I need to see on the web?

rwcole @ 70

Notice that when someone REALLY pushes Sugar Jesus about a point of testimony “So you are saying that you NEVER asked the question about who ya voted for to a candidate who was not interviewed for a political appointee position?”–Sugar Jesus backs off like an Indie Car in reverse gear.

Yeah rw – when someone asks her questions that require finite answers she starts spinning.

Howdy Hilde!

Mutant Poodle @ 93

TexBetsy @ 74

what’s the best link to watch the hearings? now on the XP.

…and is it on CSPAN 1 or 2, or do I need to see on the web?

CSpan #3

Celtic Music @ 89

I suspect that Monica Goodling is smarter than she’s coming across. Dick C. and Woodhall Hollow are onto something up @34. Why, this sweet young woman may have crossed the line, but she sure didn’t mean to. Just a zealous young professional, trying so hard to do a great job and please her supervisors. If she did, oh so inadvertently, cross that line into illegality, it was unintentional and, certainly, not directed by anybody else.

That’s her assigned role…eager, ambitious young employee, a bit naieve (although a rising star…interesting contradiction), whose zeal may have clouded her judgement, although she can’t recollect for absolute certain. Anybody else see signs of Barbara Comstock at work in this performance?

Maxine Waters raised Barbara Comstock’s name in her quick review of Monica’s resume. Comstock is MG’s mentor, or one of them.

MP

it’s on CSpan 3

Woodhall Hollow @ 81

Tithonia @ 58

I’m going to duck in here and then duck out quickly before I get in trouble, but could people please stop attacking Monica’s appearance? It just sounds silly and spiteful. She’s an attractive young woman.

I know! It is amazing how, invariably, the appearance of women are attacked. Pretty equally by men on the right and the left I would say. Either that or hormone “jokes”. And I am really sick of it. (I also hate it when men on the right and the left call men they don’t respect “pussies”–something I have seen in the comments on this blog).

Kind of OT but we are in recess. This is just part of the double standards that we as women have to cope with. Strong women like Hilary get stereotyped as cold, heartless bitches. More feminine women get stereotyped as brainless bimbos. This is just life and life isn’t fair. (of course we should work to over come these stereotypes, don’t get me wrong.)

TeddySanFran @ 22

What caught my ear was the obvious tag-teaming between the GOPer before Issa and then Issa, on Lam. It put paid to my theory that one side can’t coordinate, because they clearly did.

Does anyone believe that setting up a timeline between memos, meetings, and then newspaper articles makes ANY sense at all? And yet, the pre-Issa GOPcritter did just that; then asked her why anyone would imply she was fired for these things that appeared in the paper much later. Are we to believe that Main DoJ became aware of Lam’s actions only when articles about Cunningham appeared in the paper?

They knew what Lam was up to on Cunningham very early on, and started baking the guns-and-immigration pie for her then. They even suckered DiFi into playing along. But they were clearly going for Lam, because of Cunningham (and Foggo and Wilkes) long before anything appeared in the paper.

If the Cunningham indictment involved a RICO or a Tax count, the USA would need DOJ prior approval to bring the csse.

Plus, you have to brief Main Justice from time to time on where you are allocating your resources. So, if Lam was using a lot of her limited resources to do the Cunningham/Foggo investigations and therefor didnt have much left for guns and immigration, well DOJ would know that from the allocation reports.

Mutant Poodle @ 93

TexBetsy @ 74

what’s the best link to watch the hearings? now on the XP.

…and is it on CSPAN 1 or 2, or do I need to see on the web?

use the toobz

The quick top-of-the-hour news roundup on NPR made Goodling’s testimony out to be quite negative for her and McNulty. They played the “I crossed the line” clip.

TeddySanFran @ 75

conniptionfit @ 68

Are the Dems really backing down on timelines because they’re afaid that Bush is going to go all around over the long memorial day weekend castigating them for not funding the troops? They’re more afraid of Bush calling them names than they are of us???

yes

Okay, now I am gonna throw up. In the art of negotiation, your first objective is to set the point beyond which you will not go. Anything above that point is totally give-and-take. The Dems are only playing (along with the Republicans)political games with the lives of American military now. They weren’t really ready to negotiate at all – they did not have a “point” to stand firm on – they’re just playing political games.

where are the other emails??? what’s in the binder that Conyers gave out? when are we gonna get to the evidence of subverting the justice dept that’s in those emails? just wonderin.

David Robinson @ 102

The quick top-of-the-hour news roundup on NPR made Goodling’s testimony out to be quite negative for her and McNulty. They played the “I crossed the line” clip.

Excellent.

A note on the testimony so far.

Many of the commenters have criticized HJC for not being in-depth enough, being ill-prepared, not asking good enough questions, etc.

While agreeing with some of this, I’d also like to point out that Goodling is pretty much damning herself, the Main DoJ senior staff, and the administration with just about every other sentence that comes out her mouth.

Goodling avoids details and names as much as possible, but there’s no getting around the fact that her political questions of potential non-political employees was known and approved of by senior WH and DoJ staff.

The Republican Congressmen’s (and they’re apparently all men) insistence that there’s ‘nothing to see here, nothing illegal occurred, nothing inappropriate, etc., etc.’ is frankly laughable when contrasted with Goodling’s own demand for immunity and her repeated admissions of engaging in inappropriate actions.

Finally, Goodling’s many non-responsive, non-sequitorial answers make her come across as alternately weaselly, clueless, bigoted (when responding to Lee’s questions on why Goodling blocked/delayed the promotion of a Howard U. graduate), not very bright, and gullible — as if she’s repeating a Republican line of justifications for politicized hirings without ever considering the role and importance of impartiality in the administration of the law.

Put bluntly, Goodling’s testimony so far, even without the details we might have hoped for, displays not only her own incompetence, but the incompetence of the WH and DoJ senior administrators who placed her in such a high position of responsibility.

Comey’s testimony was a breath of fresh air; something that actually passed the “smell test;” something approaching honesty. I keep waiting for someone in the current administration to step forward and, just for a change of pace, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That “someone” is NOT Monica Goodling. As a Christian, it troubles me that these nominal “believers” are comfortable prevaricating while committing acts of omission and commission. If they would take the time to actually read their Bibles they would find that ALL liars will find their place in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. Apparently, they are willing to sacrifice their immortal souls to save the skin of their Lord and Savior, George W. Bush! That their consciences could be so seared as to not recognize their “sins” stands as testimony to the radical, brainwashed, brain-dead, zealotry that Bush and his followers adhere to. Would one SANE Republican PLEASE stand up and say, “ENOUGH!?” Are they all as vacuous as Monica Goodling? Are they all willing to sacrifice themselves and their honor for people who clearly do not deserve fealty, much less blind loyalty? I am discouraged, disgusted, and depressed. Please, my friends, tell me where is the light at the end of the tunnel? Must we wait until 2008 for change? Can we afford to wait that long?

TexBetsy @ 71

conniptionfit @ 68

Are the Dems really backing down on timelines because they’re afaid that Bush is going to go all around over the long memorial day weekend castigating them for not funding the troops? They’re more afraid of Bush calling them names than they are of us???

yep

How can that be? I’m MUCH meaner and more vindictive! Bush was never gonna say anything nice about them anyway. And now I’m not either! Do they go looking for opportunities to piss their allies off??

LS @ 72

Another thing that caught my ears:

She traveled with Gonzo.

Rut Roh, are we going there? OOOOO, Let’s.

As Digby pointed out, those Goopers who are upset about costs and witch hunts had no problem spending most of the 90s dragging various Clinton Administration officials into the House. Obstensibly, because of their concern for the rule of law.

I would like to see more questions about Griffin. She has already alluded to him reaching out her from the White House. Why did he reach out to her? What actions did she take on his behalf? What did Griffin tell her of what the White House was saying. She completely opened the door into the White House and no one has tried to dig deeper.

Re: Monica’s looks. Yes, she is attractive.

She’s being used as a tool typically…and she is also using herself as a tool to channel away from the truth.

kdh22 @ 90

Tithonia @ 58

I’m going to duck in here and then duck out quickly before I get in trouble, but could people please stop attacking Monica’s appearance? It just sounds silly and spiteful. She’s an attractive young woman.

I would agree with you if she didn’t use her appearance as a manipulation tool.

What makes you say that? She’s wearing a very, very conservative suit. She hasn’t flashed anybody. She’s young, she’s pretty, and she has long blonde hair. If those things count as “manipulation tools,” well, then, I guess we need to get the burkas out.

Peterr @ 85

From the WaPo piece linked to in the post above:

A 1999 graduate of Regent University law school in Virginia Beach with six months of prosecutorial experience, Goodling was among a small coterie of young aides to Gonzales who were remarkable for their inexperience and autonomy in deciding the fates of seasoned Justice Department lawyers, according to current and former officials who worked with the group.

“Remarkable inexperience” is what came through loud and clear to me this morning. That’s the only thing I can come up with to explain the “I didn’t mean to break the law” line.

But it’s the autonomy part that needs to be followed up on now.

follow up should be:

“Were you unaware of what the law required when you ‘crossed the line’?”

“How often are you ‘unsure of your intent’? Did you not know the state of your mind when you decided to break the law?”

The Issa complaint letter attacking Lam was brought up and dissed by the Repubs as having occurred way before the investigation of Cunningham “was made public“. Someone should bring it up again to point out that Cunningham was a signer on that letter and was under investigation at the time he signed the letter attacking her. This is important for the Dems to point out. She already did acknowledge that Lam was considered spending too much time on corruption stuff and not enough on immigration issues.

Helen @ 109

LS @ 72

Another thing that caught my ears:

She traveled with Gonzo.

Rut Roh, are we going there? OOOOO, Let’s.

The lil’ faith-based, legal genius and Abu Torture sound so much alike.

LHP@100 – Not to mention that there was an extremely aggressive and broad state effort in the region that Lam was read in on and consulted in it’s implementation. The actual enforcement and prosecution numbers overall for Lam’s district are actually superb (assuming that is what you are looking for I should say). This has always been a red herring fraud.

Most interesting, to me, is the way MSM is characterizing the testimony so far. CNN online says “Goodling: No talks on attorney firings White House [sic]” indicating that Goodling’s testimony exonerates the WH. ABC says “Former Justice Official Blames Deputy Attorney General in U.S. Attorneys’ Controversy”– in other words, it’s all McNulty’s fault (thank goodness HE’S gone). MSN relegates the story to the back pages, preferring to lede with “Hot Shoes for Spring.”
No wonder the American public is completely oblivious to the importance of what’s been going on at the DOJ.

TexBetsy @ 101

Mutant Poodle @ 93

…and is it on CSPAN 1 or 2, or do I need to see on the web?

use the toobz

Having missed the morning session (drat!) I was hoping to see Ms. Goodling in full screen glory.

Any potential cattiness has been nullified by the small screen.

[bows head in shame]

Re-lurking and thanks for the welcome back…

Did I read correctly (because, you know, I couldn’t bear to watch) but did she try to throw Margolis under the bus too? Did she imply that he was responsbile for personnel decisions too?

Did she try to throw Yoda under the bus?

Celtic Music @ 89

That’s her assigned role…eager, ambitious young employee, a bit naieve (although a rising star…interesting contradiction), whose zeal may have clouded her judgement, although she can’t recollect for absolute certain. Anybody else see signs of Barbara Comstock at work in this performance?

Well, she wasn’t hired for her legal abilities. And she wasn’t even hired as some kind of wingnut welfare sinecure. She followed the standard route for the GOPeratives who’ve infected the career ranks. Discount Regent Small Engine Repair for a moment, and consider how many people have gone from College Republican ranks to Bush-Cheney or RNC positions to the White House or the executive branch departments.

TeddySanFran@97:

I know that Comstock’s a mentor, and responsible for bringing Goodling over to DoJ, as I recall.

My question is more specific to the persona Ms. Goodling is presenting today. The wide-eyed country girl, driven by her desire for public service, is in contrast to a young woman on the fast-track in Republican politics. I’m just wondering who wrote the screenplay, and defined today’s character. And Comstock was the first one to come to mind.

merciless @ 113

kdh22 @ 90

I would agree with you if she didn’t use her appearance as a manipulation tool.

What makes you say that? She’s wearing a very, very conservative suit. She hasn’t flashed anybody. She’s young, she’s pretty, and she has long blonde hair. If those things count as “manipulation tools,” well, then, I guess we need to get the burkas out.

And all the while she’s lying

kdh22 @ 123

merciless @ 113

What makes you say that? She’s wearing a very, very conservative suit. She hasn’t flashed anybody. She’s young, she’s pretty, and she has long blonde hair. If those things count as “manipulation tools,” well, then, I guess we need to get the burkas out.

And all the while she’s lying

And, Merciless, see Celtic Music @ 122

Celtic Music @ 122

TeddySanFran@97:

I know that Comstock’s a mentor, and responsible for bringing Goodling over to DoJ, as I recall.

My question is more specific to the persona Ms. Goodling is presenting today. The wide-eyed country girl, driven by her desire for public service, is in contrast to a young woman on the fast-track in Republican politics. I’m just wondering who wrote the screenplay, and defined today’s character. And Comstock was the first one to come to mind.

No doubt in my mine. She looks like Babs’ “Mini-me”.

Or Babs 30 year ago.

(Hope you liked that one, Babs, cooked it up just for you.)

Woodhall Hollow @ 81

Tithonia @ 58

I’m going to duck in here and then duck out quickly before I get in trouble, but could people please stop attacking Monica’s appearance? It just sounds silly and spiteful. She’s an attractive young woman.

I know! It is amazing how, invariably, the appearance of women are attacked. Pretty equally by men on the right and the left I would say. Either that or hormone “jokes”. And I am really sick of it. (I also hate it when men on the right and the left call men they don’t respect “pussies”–something I have seen in the comments on this blog).

Some of us gals just like to have a little bit of “fun with the fundies.” Not gonna apologize for that, sorry.

So she’s a cute little Gooper.
Look at who she has been working with/mentored by,then look out for fangs.

TexBetsy @ 74

what’s the best link to watch the hearings? now on the XP.

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_…..p;Code=CS3

Hearing is getting back underway.

We’re back.

we’re back

kdh22 @ 123

merciless @ 113

What makes you say that? She’s wearing a very, very conservative suit. She hasn’t flashed anybody. She’s young, she’s pretty, and she has long blonde hair. If those things count as “manipulation tools,” well, then, I guess we need to get the burkas out.

And all the while she’s lying

Sampson and Gonzales and McNulty all lied through their teeth (with the same wide-eyed innocence of Goodling) but I don’t remember a single commenter, male or female, accusing them of using their appearance to manipulate.

The hearing is about to restart.

Celtic Music @ 122

TeddySanFran@97:

I know that Comstock’s a mentor, and responsible for bringing Goodling over to DoJ, as I recall.

My question is more specific to the persona Ms. Goodling is presenting today. The wide-eyed country girl, driven by her desire for public service, is in contrast to a young woman on the fast-track in Republican politics. I’m just wondering who wrote the screenplay, and defined today’s character. And Comstock was the first one to come to mind.

You are correct. I imagine they learned something from the Toensing disaster.

Aaaaarrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!
Her explanation of invoking the 5th amendment was really, really lame, as was her explanation as to why she resigned. I could no longer be effective?????? Yeah, right, as long as nobody knew wtf you were doing, Ms. Goodling, you were able to be effective. But, as soon as it appeared as if your tactics would be under scrutiny, finally, you found that you could no longer work effectively. What a load of crap! And, as for the inculpating evidence she might be forced to cough up under oath…she was worried about a little violation of the fairness in hiring laws!?? Of the Hatch Act???? Oooooh. That’ll get you at least a year, with time off for goodling behavior! Where’s the real crime! I’ll tell you where. Shredding records of meetings and decisions, then saying they never existed! Now, there’s a crime worth worrying about! “I might have been a little vague about some of the reasons, blah, blah, blah, but I never intended to mislead anyone.” That’s not a crime. That’s nothing to worry about! Falsifying records. That’s worth some time. Instead, we get “We should have been a little more organized with the way we did things.” Karl Rove? Never met the man. His staff, yes. But not the man, himself. So, Ms. Goodling, have you ever heard a member of Mr. Rove’s staff initiate politically motivated personnel decisions that you then carried out at DOJ? “Um. Yeeees.” And, Ms. Goodling, would you say that Rovesputin’s staff were acting as free agent’s, or did you have the impression that they were simply following the pattern that Rovespierre set out for them? “Um. Well. Uhh. I can’t really say what their motivation was.” Still no crime! The other scenario: “Um. Noooo.” If not, Ms. Goodling, what was your role in DOJ with respect to the WH? “Um, travel plans, morale issues, bingo nights.” OK. Thank you, Ms. Goodling. It’s a darned shame that you had to give up your fine job in the government. However, I’m certain that an upstanding, bright, and, may I say, foxy young woman like you should have no trouble finding an excellent position with the RNC. And that concludes this hearing. Nothing to see here. Move along, now.

kdh22, of course she’s lying. I completely agree with that, and I hope Maxine Waters makes her cry.

I’m just saying that she’s not manipulating anybody with her looks, any more than in any other situation where old men are looking at an attractive woman. Less, in this case, since she’s not in a centerfold or in a beer commercial.

Woodhall Hollow @ 132

kdh22 @ 123

And all the while she’s lying

Sampson and Gonzales and McNulty all lied through their teeth (with the same wide-eyed innocence of Goodling) but I don’t remember a single commenter, male or female, accusing them of using their appearance to manipulate.

Everyone talked about Sampson’s physical appearance, and Abu Torture was lambasted for his suit IIRC

noen @ 114

Monica’s got immunity. Her crimes may be interesting, but the bigger concern is weeding out the misconduct of bigger fish. She’s safe, as long as she tells the truth — so now let’s see her earn it by checking out who else crossed that line with her.

“Now that you are aware of that line, were you encouraged to cross it by others? Whom? When?”

I love how, was it Maxine Waters?, tied in the RNC researching experience to her role later as presumably RNC researcher inside the DOJ. That was really well done. I wish she’d had a little more time to flesh that out.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 79

Bush is like an abusive spouse. And the victim keeps going back for more.

Great quote!

omg Forbes (VA) sez it’s a horrible day when Xtians get asked how they did their job at DoJ

The repukes are playing the Christian card. Fuckers!

Oh, shit, Forbes is going on about how awful this religious discrimination stuff is..

noen @ 99

Woodhall Hollow @ 81

I know! It is amazing how, invariably, the appearance of women are attacked. Pretty equally by men on the right and the left I would say. Either that or hormone “jokes”. And I am really sick of it. (I also hate it when men on the right and the left call men they don’t respect “pussies”–something I have seen in the comments on this blog).

Kind of OT but we are in recess. This is just part of the double standards that we as women have to cope with. Strong women like Hilary get stereotyped as cold, heartless bitches. More feminine women get stereotyped as brainless bimbos. This is just life and life isn’t fair. (of course we should work to over come these stereotypes, don’t get me wrong.)

I’m willing to bet that if Monica had been a man and showed up with anything remarkable about his appearance, e.g., bad combover, it would have been commented on. I’m also willing to bet that as Monica got ready for this hearing this morning, her hair style was deliberate and probably related to how sympathetic she wanted to appear. If this is true, is it not then fair game for comment? If not, then it seems she (and anyone else who tries to use their appearance to manipulate opinion — a long list) gets an unfair advantage, i.e., the ability to create a sympathetic image without being called on it.

Clearly it is a ticklish issue. It is easy for it to become overly frivolous — but it (appearance and how we humans use it to manipulate other humans) should not be off-limits to critique, imho.

Oh no, I was wondering when someone was going to portray Goodling as a Christian martyr.

Forbes: “It’s a sad day when we ask questions of *Christians*.”

WTF?

To add what I said about her hair, men with long hair tend to tie it back when wanting to be taken seriously as well. It’s just that most men don’t have such long hair. Can anyone name other witnesses who’ve let their hair down during their testimony? It is an unusual sight as far as I can recall.

new thread
just missed the zed
think i’ll go back to bed

merciless @ 136

kdh22, of course she’s lying. I completely agree with that, and I hope Maxine Waters makes her cry.

I’m just saying that she’s not manipulating anybody with her looks, any more than in any other situation where old men are looking at an attractive woman. Less, in this case, since she’s not in a centerfold or in a beer commercial.

Since I’m gonna be epu’ed, I’ll de-lurk. Not all old men find younger women attractive. (Get over yourselves, young ladies.)

merciless @ 113

What makes you say that? She’s wearing a very, very conservative suit. She hasn’t flashed anybody. She’s young, she’s pretty, and she has long blonde hair. If those things count as “manipulation tools,” well, then, I guess we need to get the burkas out.

I’m just going to make one point: why have we been stuck with the handful of old photographs culled from websites these past weeks? Did she not have an official formal head shot for DOJ? Were there not official photographs of DOJ events where she participated? KO has joked about it, but I think his jokes point to something more intriguing about the visuals here.

TexBetsy @ 148

new thread
just missed the zed
think i’ll go back to bed

well said

Oh, now this guy is just lying. Politics in political hires.

OK forbes – if there’s nothing there, why is your star witness taking the fifth?

Turning up the heat.

Iran expanding nuclear activities, report says

Iran has stepped up its defiance of the UN by expanding its nuclear enrichment activities, the UN’s nuclear watchdog said today. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s findings have set the stage for further sanctions against Iran, which insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

The Bush boys got rid of the last UN Sec General. He wouldn’t tow the Cheney-Rove line. Notice how when the UN doesn’t cooperate with U.S. wishes it’s poltical? When the UN does what the Administration likes, then every thing is hunky-dory.

The poor persecuted Christians. (Who are a majority, and how they’re persecuted is beyond me but is evidently an article of faith among some of the fundamentalists.)

I’d say that Monica knows damned well what’s at stake both legally and politically, knows that the five minute rule makes follow up lines of questioning impossible- and is taking full advantage of the situation. She begins with a qualified denial and if anyone pushed the issue of the qualifications, she changes the subject subtly, and if they continue to push, she may agree that she isn’t completely denying- but by then the damned five minutes is up.

I don’t think she’s attractive- I see her as pretty plain but polished- but that’s just me.

Sans hair dye and makeup she’s not much- but she’s tryin ta look the part.

Peterr @ 138

noen @ 114

Monica’s got immunity. Her crimes may be interesting, but the bigger concern is weeding out the misconduct of bigger fish. She’s safe, as long as she tells the truth — so now let’s see her earn it by checking out who else crossed that line with her.

“Now that you are aware of that line, were you encouraged to cross it by others? Whom? When?”

Yes, you’re right. I think that getting her to say “Yes, I broke the law here.” Would be helpful for the media attention and the general frame that a crime was committed. She shouldn’t allowed to say “I didn’t know it was wrong and I didn’t meant to if I did it.”

noen @ 51

I am amazed that rep Sanchez didn’t know what voter caging was and had no idea wha tthe term meant or how it was used. Monica’s answer was “Gosh whilickers I think it has something to do with marketing but I don’t know either!”

sickening. Can someone send Sanchez a brief explaining voter caging to her

please??

I am sure she knows and just did not follow up at this time. More later from many of them.

GOP memo to all Pub committee members: Kiss Goodling’s behind, whine, whine some more, lavish praise on Goodling, whine, attack some Dems on unrelated matters, whine.

jeliz @ 61

Can someone tell this uninformed lurker what voter caging is?

It’s another method of disenfranchising voters. For example, they send a registered letter to someone during the summer months when it’s likely they’re on vacation and it gets returned because no one was home to sign for it. They can then use that returned letter to challenge the voter when s/he tries to vote, saying they don’t live where they’re supposed to live. The probability is that the voter isn’t going to have the time/patience to go home and get whatever documentation is needed to prove that they can indeed vote.

There are a bunch of different variations on that theme; that’s just an example. There’s a Florida caging spreadsheet that got captured by the gwb43.org email trap.

Thank you, Woodhall Hollow @ 26. I am just skimming these postings, so I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this, and I am not following the hearings on the tube, but AFTER asking if it were illegal, and her blantly rehearsed remark, ask the easy follow-up: “On what/WHOSE authority did you base your assumption on that you could ask that sort of question?” If these hearings are to get at the top cats, then you have to create a trail on the record. Or this is just theatrics. Ask the damn question!

These investigations are stacked against finding the truth. Conyers seems weak and disorganized. The 5 minute rule precludes indepth aggressive questioning. Republicans have closed ranks and are coordinating their comments and objections. Democrats are ill prepared and clearly have no strategy. Such a pity this wasn’t occuring in Leahy’s Committee but then all he seems capable of doing is writing strongly worded letters.

conniptionfit @ 68

Are the Dems really backing down on timelines because they’re afaid that Bush is going to go all around over the long memorial day weekend castigating them for not funding the troops? They’re more afraid of Bush calling them names than they are of us???

EPU’d from an earlier thread:

I suggest printing up postcards with the image of US Flag draped coffins coming off the plane at Dover.

EVERY time the death toll in Iraq increases, I plan to send my Rep and Senators a postcard telling them that because they gave Bush a blank check, they’re personally responsible for every death over there.

Anyone want to join me?

King is a tool. Try to keep your lunch down.

Brisingamen @ 162

conniptionfit @ 68

Are the Dems really backing down on timelines because they’re afaid that Bush is going to go all around over the long memorial day weekend castigating them for not funding the troops? They’re more afraid of Bush calling them names than they are of us???

EPU’d from an earlier thread:

I suggest printing up postcards with the image of US Flag draped coffins coming off the plane at Dover.

EVERY time the death toll in Iraq increases, I plan to send my Rep and Senators a postcard telling them that because they gave Bush a blank check, they’re personally responsible for every death over there.

Anyone want to join me?

I provided the links to photo and a company that can make postcards. More than willing to address and mail AFTER JUNE 11. Until then, too busy.

Why are they so focussed on protecting the reputation of RegentU?

meep! @ 165

Why are they so focussed on protecting the reputation of RegentU?

Because there are over 150 of them in the Bush Administration! They must be part of the 50% who passed the bar.

“Who fired the attorneys and why were they fired?”

That’s really all this is about I think- so questioners should stick to it and dig deep. To the extent they go off on other issues- they aren’t pushing the ball forward. I think she’s already said that she doesn’t exactly know- but what DOES she know about it?

Seem to me that this should be the focus.

Call me crazy, but shouldn’t a high-ranking JUSTICE official know the law(s)?

Celtic Music @ 89

I suspect that Monica Goodling is smarter than she’s coming across. Dick C. and Woodhall Hollow are onto something up @34. Why, this sweet young woman may have crossed the line, but she sure didn’t mean to. Just a zealous young professional, trying so hard to do a great job and please her supervisors. If she did, oh so inadvertently, cross that line into illegality, it was unintentional and, certainly, not directed by anybody else.

That’s her assigned role…eager, ambitious young employee, a bit naieve (although a rising star…interesting contradiction), whose zeal may have clouded her judgement, although she can’t recollect for absolute certain. Anybody else see signs of Barbara Comstock at work in this performance?

Yes, shrewed.

randron@107

If they would take the time to actually read their Bibles they would find that ALL liars will find their place in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. Apparently, they are willing to sacrifice their immortal souls to save the skin of their Lord and Savior, George W. Bush! That their consciences could be so seared as to not recognize their “sins” stands as testimony to the radical, brainwashed, brain-dead, zealotry that Bush and his followers adhere to.

Radical ‘Fundamentalist Christianity’ is an amazing thing. Ya see to them, anything that brings about the end times (which many believe God made Dubya the pResident for)is glorifying the will of God. They are practicing a ‘Higher Law’ that is above and beyond something as um, ‘quaint’ as a Constitution written by man.

I saw this posted on a church sign on my way home yesterday:

“Trust God with all your heart, not your own wisdom.”

These folks believe that they are doing God’s will. Nothing else matters, short of their being indicted.

I see no reason to think that this woman doesn’t understand the law perfectly well.

“Trust God with all your heart, not your own wisdom.”

“She sinks beneath your wisdom like a stone”

(Suzanne)

Twisted Martini @ 33

The list just dropped out of Karl’s rectum. Seriously, I think she got her law degree out of a Happy Meal box.

——
You all are making my day.

noen @ 99

Woodhall Hollow @ 81

I know! It is amazing how, invariably, the appearance of women are attacked. Pretty equally by men on the right and the left I would say. Either that or hormone “jokes”. And I am really sick of it. (I also hate it when men on the right and the left call men they don’t respect “pussies”–something I have seen in the comments on this blog).

Kind of OT but we are in recess. This is just part of the double standards that we as women have to cope with. Strong women like Hilary get stereotyped as cold, heartless bitches. More feminine women get stereotyped as brainless bimbos. This is just life and life isn’t fair. (of course we should work to over come these stereotypes, don’t get me wrong.)

I am sorry, if there were comments calling her ugly, a) I missed them, b) those peole are blind. That’s not the point, she is all dressed up to play a part.

The Little girl voice, the Barbie hair, the little charm on a gold chain around her neck–are allmeant to make her look harmless, meek and innocent.

Yet by her own tesimony she is John Bolton in drag when it comes to sharp elbowed intre office fighting. Did youlisten to her testimony about thelong time Dpeuty who’s power she stole and then used that person’s righteous resentment of the ursurptation as a way to get her tranferred out.

“oh, we were just 2 Type A women”—-My ass!

She is a quite obviously a very vicious wolf dressed up in Bambi clothing to try to fake her way out of trouble, the same way she seems to have faked her way into her jobs.

Pre-AGAG was anybody at her level in the DOJ that young? That lacking in experience?

Somebody in one of the much earlier threads this AM posted a link to her resume. I see, homecomming COmiitee or some such. What I didn’t see was “law Review”, “Moot Court”, “Mock Trial”, “clerkship”, “law student clinics”.

You know, signs of academic excellence?

My question:

What, exactly did you think might be ’self incriminating’ in your testimony today?

Jason @ 23:

Thanks, man. I’m glad someone thought they could have been useful.

Disappointing day..

So, what has caught your ear this morning in the testimony?

That Conyers is way past his prime and should retire immediately, and that democracy in the U.S.A. is a hollow fraud. NONE of the questions or questioners indicate any grasp of how deadly serious and dangerous our situation is.

When one side doesn’t play by the rules, DEMOCRACY DOESN’T WORK. The Republicans have broken the system and the Democrats are still in la-la land.

Not nearly enough outrage. They should be pounding the podium and driving Goodling to tears. They should be ANGRY. That they are not is not a reflection of their gentlemanliness, it’s a sign of being goddamned stupid.